While NFT's are still being created and handed around like hot potatoes, the last couple of weeks have shown some, very predicted, issues.

Firstly, one of the most famous NFT's - the first twitter post - which was bouhgt for $2.9 million. The owner of this NFT tried to sell it again on auction last week, but would you have thunked it? it did not reach $2.9M. It did instead only reach $6.800... so a net loss here of um... almost $2.9M. In the end, the owner did not sell it, but claimed isntead that he would nver sell it.... which i guess is the reason why he tried to auction it... but who would have thought that something which have no inherent value might show up to be valuless? shocking. as times go past, this will not be the only one.

Next point of interest. Have you ever heard of the game F1 Delta Time? not suprised if you have not, because as a game it was crap. It was based on F1, but for example you could only speed up or speed down, you did not turn - it was automatic. You did not race any other cars or players, only your own best time. And it was browser based only. As a game, it lasted 3 years, but got shut down earlier this month - because the company lost the F1 license. Why mention it? Because it is one of the first NFT heavy games. People could buy NFT's of the cars and drivers in the game, and some people spent more then $100K on these NFT's... for a game that no longer exists.... and those NFT's are for all intent and purpose no longer existing. they have beed delterd, whiped of the servers, ceased to b, expired and gone to meet their makers, they rests in peace, kicked the bucket, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!. They are ex-assets.

But good news! the company who made the game have promised that they will use the NFT's for a different game! But then it sounds like fungable tokens, the value of the token being consitent between applications, as well as it is not decetralised, as the company, not the NFT owner, makes the desitions on the reuse. hmm.... problematic..... some inherent functions in the NFT's here that does not quite work?
(https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/f1-delta-time-one-of-the-first-major-nft-games-has-shut-down/)

As NFT's continue to mature, expect more of these to pop up. and don't say you where not warned.

[i]
the first twitter post - which was bouhgt for $2.9 million

People could buy NFT's of the cars and drivers in the game, and some people spent more then $100K on these NFT's...
[/i]
There are some very stupid people out there.

Happy to see that the bubble is starting to blow up this early.

I believe anything called something as stupid sounding as non fungible tokens isn't going anywhere. Everyone should have asked my opinion, but they didn't.

well, money or cryptocurrency are fungible tokens, meaning they have a fixed equal value. $1=$1, £1=£1, 1BTC=1BTC. but 1NFT≠1NFT

I wanted to say something smart, but my feelings on purpose are best described as follow: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Well said sir. Couldn't have said it better myself ;). Cheers

The whole NFT craze is such a colossal waste of time, effort, and money, solely for the purposes of making wealthy people wealthier.

I've been following it to see if it's going to crash, and it looks like it's starting to. Unfortunately, you have companies like Square Enix claiming we don't understand NFT's and the value they propose; meanwhile others like Ubisoft, are potentially getting overtaken soon.

All in all it's good that these disasters are ending in.... well, disasters. Anyone who invests in these scams deserves to lose their money. Nothing on the internet has any actual value, despite what the con men try to tell you, other than information.

I liked that one quote went something like; You're not understanding the value it could bring! ...to your hobby that you do for fun...

That already gets real blurry too with the massive grind in some games. I do think people mistake monotony for fun at times, and the end result being a worthwhile "accomplishment".

But i can see why they would fail to see it.

Dude you answer the question of your first paragraph with your second paragraph. People should be discouraged from throwing their money into this because it provides data for the companies to inevitably spin in their favor ("see, people accept NFTs! Please enjoy our future projects, which consist solely of NFTs"). Once anti-consumer practices take root, they are nearly impossible to revert. These companies don't need any additional "help" whatsover from customers in trying to push these sort of policies through.

My response to NFTs doing bad is "And nothing of value was lost." Quite literally!

And another proof that people "investing" in these things aren't terribly bright either, a bunch of tokens possibly worth millions for the poster-child of hideous NFT "art" have been stolen via good ole phishing. Scam-ception all the way!

Indeed, nothing of value was lost. I get a healthy helping of schadenfreude from seeing these scams crash and burn.

you can claim a lot about NFT's, but anti-consumerist is not one of them. you could actualy do the argument of the opposit - NFT's as a symptom of hyper-cosnumerism. As NFT's are trades in digtial and non-existing entities, there is nothing in them stopping people using digital goods at all. ownership of an NFT have no impact on how the assets is used (or not used), so they cannot be anti-consumerist. and the sad part, as usual, is that this is not how it started and the original puspose. it had two different pusposes to start with. firstly democrtisation and decentralization of ownership of digital goods, by moving them away from physical counterparts and onto the blockchain. simialr to the start of crypto-currensies which started out from desntrialisation the hold global banks and governments has on the economy.

secondly, it was an attempt for digital artists to claim owneship of their artworks, and make it possible for them to make a living of their art by having an digital object they can offer for trade. this is easy for physical art, as you can sell the art work itself. however, this is not really possible for digital art work. the solution was the tokens placed on the block-chain, which had the value of the digital artwork itself, which then could be bought and sold similarly to physical art.

However.... that's not how it turned out.... i blame humanity

I've yet to see what the blockchain silliness actually accomplishes that regular old ledgers/databases don't. So far all the crypto-crap has been nothing but a solution in search of a problem.

I am not an expert, and my understanding is limited, but as far as I understand it the idea is two-folded. firstly it is security and anti-tampering. since each block ihas a hash built into it based on the content of the block before it and a timestamp of when it was created, it is not possible to change, edit or tamper with a block without needing to later all the blocks that comes before it (as the block has iformation of the block before it, which contains information abot the block before that, which has information of the block before that again and so on. which is why it is called a block chain). this is why it is good for a ledger of valuable items, such as a currency - noone can hack it or change it to their benefit (in theory). So if you have a single ledger, that is a master copy which can be attacked or changed by the owners of the ledger, but a block-chain cannot.

Linked ot his that when you have a ledger, you also have an owner of that ledger. but the strenght of a block-chain is that (almost alwyas) exist on distributed peer-2-peer networks, which means there are no single centralised weakness nor are there a single point od ownership. so the security of the block-chain is almost built into it by design of both the chain of blocks and the desentrialization and distribution of them over a large network, and removing the single point of attack through a master access point. This only works for a open and public block-chain. Everyone on the chain can see the access of anyone else, and everyone has the same access. there has been attempts of having closed, priivate block-chains, but they do not work as they in essennce ends up as both "lesser" chains and then still have a single point of attack.

Not sure if this answerd your question....